Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (108038)	6/11/2001 12:02:18 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>>>I don't think you can argue that point definitively.<<< I doubt that you could argue your point definitively either for that matter. I'm have trouble finding the individual income tax receipts time series for the period in question. If you've got a link please post. And you have to consider that other TRA 86 changes in depreciation for example, (slower in some categories--real estate, faster in others--business property IIRC) and the Section 179 expense deduction (more generous IIRC) might have been more responsible for any surge in economic activity than a reduction in individual income tax rates. To determine exactly what was responsible you'd have to go data mining in a serious way. We're talking a real project here. >>>In a high tax environment you can't close loopholes faster than they will form. The only reason congress was able to finally close the loopholes is because the marginal rates were lowered.<< Yes. It was tit for tat with TRA 86. Only the rich didn't hold up their end of the bargain and sought to restore what was taken away (...when they shouldn't have been bothering...theoretically that is. Yeah, right.) The fact remains that from 1989-1993 we definitively lost 28 billion per year in individual income tax revenues due to the give backs from TRA '86. That much I know is true. Everyting else is an assumption-- on your part where you blindly assume a reduction in rates stimulated economic activity and on mine part where I suspect the treatment of business assets was more responsible.